Tier I & Tier II MA Girls's to Nationals?

[hcky85]

Re: Tier I & Tier II MA Girls's to Nationals?

Would be nice, wouldn't it.

USA Hockey, serving a country with a "varying" hockey culture has left the different districts much freedom in developing hockey in their area. Unfortunately, this comes at the cost of consistency of rules for national competition. This not only rears its ugly head here, but in other discussions which I won't bring up in this thread.

Bottom line, your 3 division idea based upon orgainizational structure of sponsor will destroy meaningful championships at all 3 divisions.

Need I be any clearer.

No, you need to be clearer as to why this makes championships more meaningful and is better for development of players and the sport.

This entire situation came from creating a poorly organized second tier and deciding to go through with it even after it started to fall apart.

Now you have the club teams that lost their spots to SSM and NSA upset because it’s not fair that they’re boarding schools and can nationally recruit. NAHA and all the people who feel they should be included in nationals because SSM and NSA get to be are now upset. All the tier II teams are mad they got crushed by the teams sent from MA because they feel those teams aren’t actually tier II teams. And the teams from MA are upset because they don’t even have a legitimate tier II national bound league but are being forced to send a tier II team.

Nice job USA hockey and all those people who thought tiers should be defined solely by level of talent. Wouldn’t it just have been easier to have one of those prep schools host their own invitational and invite the top 8 teams in the country (whether or not they're a club or school) since they all have a campus and could very easily host a tourny.

If a 1/5 of the country doesn't even have local club teams, and half of the country doesn't have tier II teams, maybe it's not time for a whole new tier to be created. Not sure if this is the case, but a 2nd tier definitely shouldn’t be being made right now if it’s at the expense of the u12 and u14 nationals.

Yeah notfromaroundhere, screw organizational structure!

 

[Hux]

Re: Tier I & Tier II MA Girls's to Nationals?

I would say poorly defined, rather than organized. Take out the teams sent from Massachusetts, or at least the Spitfires since they are Tier 1, and things aren't so bad.

Now you have the club teams that lost their spots to SSM and NSA upset because it’s not fair that they’re boarding schools and can nationally recruit. NAHA and all the people who feel they should be included in nationals because SSM and NSA get to be are now upset. All the tier II teams are mad they got crushed by the teams sent from MA because they feel those teams aren’t actually tier II teams. And the teams from MA are upset because they don’t even have a legitimate tier II national bound league but are being forced to send a tier II team.

True, to an extent, though Minnesota doesn't have club teams other than the T-Breds. Their high school teams were welcome to go to the Prep/High School championship but declined.

Nice job USA hockey and all those people who thought tiers should be defined solely by level of talent. Wouldn’t it just have been easier to have one of those prep schools host their own invitational and invite the top 8 teams in the country (whether or not their a club or school) since they all have a campus and could very easily host a tourny.

As has been discussed earlier, this did indeed happen. Unfortunately, what started out as a tourney of some 16 plus teams, ended up being one that included four when programs bailed out.

If a 1/5 of the country doesn't even have local club teams, and half of the country doesn't have tier II teams, maybe it's not time for a whole new tier to be created. Not sure if this is the case, but a 2nd tier definitely shouldn’t be being made right now if it’s at the expense of the u12 and u14 nationals.

Well, with the exception of the aforementioned trouncing by the Spitfires, it seemed as if the tourney was a competitive affair. Also, the dropping of the U12s, and possibly the 14s in the future, has nothing to do with adding Tier II.

 

[NJCPolarBear]

Re: Tier I & Tier II MA Girls's to Nationals?

Glad I was able to get all your undies all in a bunch... Where I'm from Hockey folks are a bit smarter and not such stupid libs. Oh well, you all need to get out more.

p.s. you canadian/mass hosers can stick to figure skating. my daughter's doing just fine. And no Wendy, I'm not Digit, although I have met her several times at various tournaments when she was scouting my daughter's team's games. She seems a little odd....must be a Canadian...

 

[LG4]

Re: Tier I & Tier II MA Girls's to Nationals?

Glad I was able to get all your undies all in a bunch... Where I'm from Hockey folks are a bit smarter and not such stupid libs. Oh well, you all need to get out more.

p.s. you canadian/mass hosers can stick to figure skating. my daughter's doing just fine. And no Wendy, I'm not Digit, although I have met her several times at various tournaments when she was scouting my daughter's team's games. She seems a little odd....must be a Canadian...

Good one! Scouting your daughters team Ha ! Ha!.. so why the need to protect your fifedom

 

[OnMAA]

Re: Tier I & Tier II MA Girls's to Nationals?

.... she was scouting my daughter's team's games. ...

At U14 or U12.....Ain't happening.....

 

[stpaul77]

Re: Tier I & Tier II MA Girls's to Nationals?

Let me give you the other side of the coin.

I was watching the U19 MA Spitfires demolish the opposing team. After the game was over, the gentleman (?) to my right booed the girls and was making really unsportman like comments. I had told him that it was not the girls choice, they were here to play a game. He "got off" on me telling me how much he spent to get there, what his team went through, the girls had a choice, the parents had a choice and the coach had a choice.

While this person and I were arguing, another parent from my daughters team, came in with a more moderate view but assented to the fact that whatever choice was made, the girls are just that, girls. They made a decision, whether bad or good, right or wrong, and would have to live with it. This discussion became more heated when a MA Spitfire mother accused me of unsportsman like conduct by yelling at the girls. I rarely make any comments directed towards the ice, but only towards officials on the ice. Never directed towards players. All "mom" noted is where the comments came from, but not who, so "I" was the designated bad guy. Two of us were arguing with the third, and "mom" came in the middle and gave me a hard time. "Mom's" husband finally took her out of the situation. I think that he "got it", and mom was defending her child and team. The person that was yelling the comments to the players is a horses rear, plain and simple.

Regardless of the outcome, all the girls played to their best level. It is just too bad that the tier I teams played in the tier II Nationals. The tier II teams had no chance. Sort of like having the NY Yankees play a little league team in their nationals. There was a definate difference between MA, TX, and the remainder of the teams (in the U19 division) in skill.

I was informed by a third party that the club was told that if they hadn't gone to Nats, there would be negative consequences for them next year. I do not know if that is true, but that is what the rumor was.

See yall next year

The sick thing was the USA hockey representatives sitting in their little rooms at the rinks watching all this happening (ignorant parents yelling at and booing the Spitfires). I know for a fact that they were asked to address the issue (because I asked them directly) and at least give everyone the facts about why the tier 1 teams were there. I (we) got zero response from any of the 4 USAH reps. They could have at least dispelled some rumers. USAH needs to get some huevos and set down RULES not guidelines for next year and beyond.
I do know for a fact that I would not have taken my daughter out of school and spent tons of money that I don't have if I had known our team had zero chance of winning the title. We did get a bronze with the other quarterfinal team (who we almost played our own game with on Sunday for our own title).


Peace

 

[notfromaroundhere]

Re: Tier I & Tier II MA Girls's to Nationals?

Glad I was able to get all your undies all in a bunch... Where I'm from Hockey folks are a bit smarter and not such stupid libs. Oh well, you all need to get out more.

p.s. you canadian/mass hosers can stick to figure skating. my daughter's doing just fine. And no Wendy, I'm not Digit, although I have met her several times at various tournaments when she was scouting my daughter's team's games. She seems a little odd....must be a Canadian...

Trolling again, eh? Clearly must be inhaling from that Honda's tailpipe if you think Digit was actually scouting your daughter's team's game. While she does get involved in girl's hockey, she knows that you can't really project a player's college potential at a 14U game. Only a tailpipe sucking narcissist would think she's actually scouting that game.

 

[hcky85]

Re: Tier I & Tier II MA Girls's to Nationals?

I would say poorly defined, rather than organized. Take out the teams sent from Massachusetts, or at least the Spitfires since they are Tier 1, and things aren't so bad.



True, to an extent, though Minnesota doesn't have club teams other than the T-Breds. Their high school teams were welcome to go to the Prep/High School championship but declined.



As has been discussed earlier, this did indeed happen. Unfortunately, what started out as a tourney of some 16 plus teams, ended up being one that included four when programs bailed out.



Well, with the exception of the aforementioned trouncing by the Spitfires, it seemed as if the tourney was a competitive affair. Also, the dropping of the U12s, and possibly the 14s in the future, has nothing to do with adding Tier II.

Yeah, actually I’ll take back the remark about blaming USA hockey because personally I like what they’re trying to do.

I more have a problem with people who try to define tiers with specific teams in mind and then don’t expect repercussions to be passed on to the next team or tier. Like notfromaroundhere being so dead set on talent level defining tiers as opposed to the actual structure of a program or things like recruiting restrictions. But good luck with defining talent, that won’t be controversial or vary from year to year at all.

And by the way, 3 out of the 4 programs coming out of MA that sent teams to nationals were those so called, I’m not sure on the exact wording NFAH used, learn to skate programs that have been started up in the past ten years.

 

[notfromaroundhere]

Re: Tier I & Tier II MA Girls's to Nationals?

Yeah, actually I’ll take back the remark about blaming USA hockey because personally I like what they’re trying to do.

I more have a problem with people who try to define tiers with specific teams in mind and then don’t expect repercussions to be passed on to the next team or tier. Like notfromaroundhere being so dead set on talent level defining tiers as opposed to the actual structure of a program or things like recruiting restrictions. But good luck with defining talent, that won’t be controversial or vary from year to year at all.

And by the way, 3 out of the 4 programs coming out of MA that sent teams to nationals were those so called, I’m not sure on the exact wording NFAH used, learn to skate programs that have been started up in the past ten years.

You've misrepresented my position again. My position is that in an OPEN (i.e.Tier 1) nationals, there should be NO restriction as to how a program is organized. Other tiers can/should be defined by their structure (local program with local talent or if you insist on a school-based tier). My beef in that other thread was about the TOP tier, excluding TOP level teams.

You don't seem to be interested in having a TOP tier that is truly OPEN to teams organized by other than "clubs" (whatever that is - as a club can be founded as a for-profit, non-profit private, non-profit city-run, or even church-based). Why should school-based clubs not be able to compete with these other types of clubs for a true unrestricted national championship? Isn't that what TIER 1 would indicate?

 

[hcky85]

Re: Tier I & Tier II MA Girls's to Nationals?

You've misrepresented my position again. My position is that in an OPEN (i.e.Tier 1) nationals, there should be NO restriction as to how a program is organized. Other tiers can/should be defined by their structure (local program with local talent or if you insist on a school-based tier). My beef in that other thread was about the TOP tier, excluding TOP level teams.

You don't seem to be interested in having a TOP tier that is truly OPEN to teams organized by other than "clubs" (whatever that is - as a club can be founded as a for-profit, non-profit private, non-profit city-run, or even church-based). Why should school-based clubs not be able to compete with these other types of clubs for a true unrestricted national championship? Isn't that what TIER 1 would indicate?

You can’t just throw adjectives in front of words and think that proves your side. Before this year there was only one tier, and the word ‘open’ was never used to describe it. Now there are two tiers, but still I have never seen the word ‘open’ appear in any official website or program.

And then you use school-based clubs. Find one team in any sport at any school that is actually called both the club team and the varsity team. Or try to find any club team in any sport that’s actually affiliated with a school.

There’s a huge distinction between how you interpret and use words from the actual meanings and connotations of these words.

And having no restrictions as the only rule probably wouldn’t be the most logical way to determine the basic set up and regulations of a youth hockey tournament. If you couldn’t tell people are pretty unimpressed in both tiers now with the whole no restriction thing going on.

 

[hcky85]

Re: Tier I & Tier II MA Girls's to Nationals?

Trolling again, eh? Clearly must be inhaling from that Honda's tailpipe if you think Digit was actually scouting your daughter's team's game.

Agreed, but a Honda tailpipe? This person had to be hitting something pretty serious for them to think they saw Digit at a rink recruiting. Don’t let those hallucinations get to you man.

But besides that… I’m most likely not going to answer anything you say or even read it. I rather talk to a wall, that way I won’t have to see my words get twisted and manipulated by the contortionist you so frequently become on this forum.

Unless that is you say something remotely accurate. But I don’t see that happening any time soon.

 

[LG4]

Re: Tier I & Tier II MA Girls's to Nationals?

Agreed, but a Honda tailpipe? This person had to be hitting something pretty serious for them to think they saw Digit at a rink recruiting. Don’t let those hallucinations get to you man.

But besides that… I’m most likely not going to answer anything you say or even read it. I rather talk to a wall, that way I won’t have to see my words get twisted and manipulated by the contortionist you so frequently become on this forum.

Unless that is you say something remotely accurate. But I don’t see that happening any time soon.

Actually the phrase was that he met her several times -- doesn't that imply a face to face contact to you?

 

[bbtt]

Re: Tier I & Tier II MA Girls's to Nationals?

You've misrepresented my position again. My position is that in an OPEN (i.e.Tier 1) nationals, there should be NO restriction as to how a program is organized. Other tiers can/should be defined by their structure (local program with local talent or if you insist on a school-based tier). My beef in that other thread was about the TOP tier, excluding TOP level teams.

You don't seem to be interested in having a TOP tier that is truly OPEN to teams organized by other than "clubs" (whatever that is - as a club can be founded as a for-profit, non-profit private, non-profit city-run, or even church-based). Why should school-based clubs not be able to compete with these other types of clubs for a true unrestricted national championship? Isn't that what TIER 1 would indicate?

The problem that I have with allowing boarding school teams into Nationals (even at Tier 1) is the advantage that they have over 99% of the other teams. If a team is able to practice 5 days a week, do integrated off-ice training and live together as a unit, they have advantages that a club just doesn't have.

Due to the still expanding level of hockey in the U.S., it is not infrequent to have members on club teams travelling over 100 miles just to get to practice and they have to travel even greater distances to get games, missing school, often "unsanctioned" since it isn't part of their high school program. Hockey is more than just a commitment.

Just like we all agree it is unfair to have the Tier 1 Mass teams compete at the Tier II Nationals, I think a similar arguement can be made over boarding schools. I think if you just look at the finals over the last 5 years at Nationals you will see a consistent competitor (and frequent winner).

As much as Nationals is about who's the best, it is also about growing the sport. And I think it is in the best interest to keep the playing field relatively even.

If they were to have a prep school Nationals, I would be for it, it just shouldn't be mixed in with Tier 1.

 

[Hux]

Re: Tier I & Tier II MA Girls's to Nationals?

You can’t just throw adjectives in front of words and think that proves your side. Before this year there was only one tier, and the word ‘open’ was never used to describe it. Now there are two tiers, but still I have never seen the word ‘open’ appear in any official website or program.

Actually, "Open" was the term originally used as the Prep/High School championship was being developed.

 

[notfromaroundhere]

Re: Tier I & Tier II MA Girls's to Nationals?

The problem that I have with allowing boarding school teams into Nationals (even at Tier 1) is the advantage that they have over 99% of the other teams. If a team is able to practice 5 days a week, do integrated off-ice training and live together as a unit, they have advantages that a club just doesn't have.

Due to the still expanding level of hockey in the U.S., it is not infrequent to have members on club teams travelling over 100 miles just to get to practice and they have to travel even greater distances to get games, missing school, often "unsanctioned" since it isn't part of their high school program. Hockey is more than just a commitment.

Just like we all agree it is unfair to have the Tier 1 Mass teams compete at the Tier II Nationals, I think a similar arguement can be made over boarding schools. I think if you just look at the finals over the last 5 years at Nationals you will see a consistent competitor (and frequent winner).

As much as Nationals is about who's the best, it is also about growing the sport. And I think it is in the best interest to keep the playing field relatively even.

If they were to have a prep school Nationals, I would be for it, it just shouldn't be mixed in with Tier 1.

So your problem with NAHA, NSA, and SSM at nationals is that the players are too dedicated to the sport (as measured by hours on the ice and in training) to compete at the top level?

Let me ask how you are going to improve the sport if you are going to limit how much the participants are going to be allowed to develop themselves? And if you are going to limit the training hours/week do you apply this to the participants on all club teams?

Most of the Assabet and PB players play prep hockey AND club hockey, getting about as many hours on the ice and weight room (albeit not as many as a club team) as the NAHA's and SSM's of the world. And NE prep hockey is not USA Hockey sanctioned, so your enforcement mechanism of monitoring hours is problematic.

I spent my years as a road warrior, only wishing that my daughter's teams were closer than 100 miles from home (that would have been a breeze). I'm not the one complaining about the advantages of lots of ice time built into a program at a boarding school. While my budget could not afford to look at three schools mentioned, we did look at other programs that did fall into that same category (although not as successful). We ended up in the prep school situation with a little club thrown in where it could be done.

No, if USA Hockey isn't going to manage youth hockey at the local level and just coordinate the sport at a National level, they should allow the people who put together the local programs to develop hockey do their best to build the sport and the players. If that means different methods of organizing and financing teams or integrating hockey with their school or their church, let them be creative for the good of all.

 

[BTW67]

Re: Tier I & Tier II MA Girls's to Nationals?

Trolling again, eh? Clearly must be inhaling from that Honda's tailpipe if you think Digit was actually scouting your daughter's team's game. While she does get involved in girl's hockey, she knows that you can't really project a player's college potential at a 14U game. Only a tailpipe sucking narcissist would think she's actually scouting that game.

Agreed, but a Honda tailpipe? This person had to be hitting something pretty serious for them to think they saw Digit at a rink recruiting. Don’t let those hallucinations get to you man.
.

LOL! Yesterday was 4/20!

 

[OnMAA]

Re: Tier I & Tier II MA Girls's to Nationals?

So your problem with NAHA, NSA, and SSM at nationals is that the players are too dedicated to the sport (as measured by hours on the ice and in training) to compete at the top level?

Let me ask how you are going to improve the sport if you are going to limit how much the participants are going to be allowed to develop themselves? And if you are going to limit the training hours/week do you apply this to the participants on all club teams?

Most of the Assabet and PB players play prep hockey AND club hockey, getting about as many hours on the ice and weight room (albeit not as many as a club team) as the NAHA's and SSM's of the world. And NE prep hockey is not USA Hockey sanctioned, so your enforcement mechanism of monitoring hours is problematic.

I spent my years as a road warrior, only wishing that my daughter's teams were closer than 100 miles from home (that would have been a breeze). I'm not the one complaining about the advantages of lots of ice time built into a program at a boarding school. While my budget could not afford to look at three schools mentioned, we did look at other programs that did fall into that same category (although not as successful). We ended up in the prep school situation with a little club thrown in where it could be done.

No, if USA Hockey isn't going to manage youth hockey at the local level and just coordinate the sport at a National level, they should allow the people who put together the local programs to develop hockey do their best to build the sport and the players. If that means different methods of organizing and financing teams or integrating hockey with their school or their church, let them be creative for the good of all.

Well Said. This !

 

[bbtt]

Re: Tier I & Tier II MA Girls's to Nationals?

So your problem with NAHA, NSA, and SSM at nationals is that the players are too dedicated to the sport (as measured by hours on the ice and in training) to compete at the top level?
.

Hmm, I don't think that is what I was saying at all. I was just saying that club teams and prep school teams should not be in the same division.

Let me ask how you are going to improve the sport if you are going to limit how much the participants are going to be allowed to develop themselves? And if you are going to limit the training hours/week do you apply this to the participants on all club teams?

Let me ask you, we are talking about 3 prep schools = 60 players vs. the hundreds of club teams that are out there (with maybe 25 of them having a shot to make nationals). How does allowing the strong to get stronger benefit the growth of hockey in this disparate situation?

In case you misunderstood, I am not for limiting the amount of time anyone spends on training, I am just saying that if you have a tournament of like competitors (such as Nationals), they should be alike.

Most of the Assabet and PB players play prep hockey AND club hockey, getting about as many hours on the ice and weight room (albeit not as many as a club team) as the NAHA's and SSM's of the world. And NE prep hockey is not USA Hockey sanctioned, so your enforcement mechanism of monitoring hours is problematic.

The difference is that both of these teams are made up of a wide range of players that come together and play for one coach. They probably spend less time with this coach than most club teams so while they may have a very high talent level, it is not the same as practicing together day in and day out with the same coach and same team.

I spent my years as a road warrior, only wishing that my daughter's teams were closer than 100 miles from home (that would have been a breeze). I'm not the one complaining about the advantages of lots of ice time built into a program at a boarding school. While my budget could not afford to look at three schools mentioned, we did look at other programs that did fall into that same category (although not as successful). We ended up in the prep school situation with a little club thrown in where it could be done.

Well, going toe to toe, don't think living 150 miles from my daughter's team home rink was a breeze. While you only had to travel on the weekends to games, we had to travel this distance 4 times a week (and we weren't the only ones), 5 to 6 hours in a car each time. Many of the games were not even drivable so I didn't get the pleasure of seeing her play. There are sacrifices made by everyone but that is neither here nor there.

 

[hcky85]

Re: Tier I & Tier II MA Girls's to Nationals?

So your problem with NAHA, NSA, and SSM at nationals is that the players are too dedicated to the sport (as measured by hours on the ice and in training) to compete at the top level?

Yeah twist those words, get at it!

 

[notfromaroundhere]

Re: Tier I & Tier II MA Girls's to Nationals?

Hmm, I don't think that is what I was saying at all. I was just saying that club teams and prep school teams should not be in the same division.


Let me ask you, we are talking about 3 prep schools = 60 players vs. the hundreds of club teams that are out there (with maybe 25 of them having a shot to make nationals). How does allowing the strong to get stronger benefit the growth of hockey in this disparate situation?

In case you misunderstood, I am not for limiting the amount of time anyone spends on training, I am just saying that if you have a tournament of like competitors (such as Nationals), they should be alike.



The difference is that both of these teams are made up of a wide range of players that come together and play for one coach. They probably spend less time with this coach than most club teams so while they may have a very high talent level, it is not the same as practicing together day in and day out with the same coach and same team.



Well, going toe to toe, don't think living 150 miles from my daughter's team home rink was a breeze. While you only had to travel on the weekends to games, we had to travel this distance 4 times a week (and we weren't the only ones), 5 to 6 hours in a car each time. Many of the games were not even drivable so I didn't get the pleasure of seeing her play. There are sacrifices made by everyone but that is neither here nor there.

Let me restate your quote:

The problem that I have with allowing boarding school teams into Nationals (even at Tier 1) is the advantage that they have over 99% of the other teams. If a team is able to practice 5 days a week, do integrated off-ice training and live together as a unit, they have advantages that a club just doesn't have.

Which part of the problem you have with boarding schools playing at Nationals being because of their ability to practice more, etc. wasn't what you were saying?

Note to hcky85 - where did I twist the words?

As to the 3 school argument, there are more than 3 schools competing this way (Gilmour Academy in Ohio comes to mind here), just 3 that made it to Nationals this year. It is a growing model for hockey development that allows for the development of hockey players and good students.

As to your commute, I'd gladly trade 300 mile round trips 4x a week with carpool support (you weren't the only one doing this) for a minimum 650 mile round trip every weekend (maximum 2000 mile and average of 900 mile round trip) without any carpool support.